Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 481
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Smt. D. Surya Prabha & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.8981 Of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2023
For the Petitioners: Sri M/s. Indus Law Firm.
For the Respondents: Sri P.N.J. Surya Tej.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that inordinate unexplained delay in lodging a complaint, lack of evidence, and presence of family disputes can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Allegations of theft, threats, and interference with personal life - Inordinate delay in lodging complaint - Lack of evidence and unexplained delay led to quashing of proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint alleging theft, threats, and interference with personal life against the petitioners. The complaint was filed with a delay of nearly one year and ten months, and no seizures were affected from any of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and lack of evidence to support the allegations. It deemed it appropriate to quash all further proceedings as none of the ingredients of the provisions were made out.
Issues: The issues revolved around the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, lack of evidence to support the allegations, and the presence of family disputes among the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 AIR 604), which allows the use of extraordinary power to quash proceedings when they are manifestly attended with malafide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the petitioners were quashed, and the Criminal Petition was allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A8 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9406 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was referred to the police for the purpose of investigation and registered as Crime No.211 of 2021 on 09.03.2021 for the offences under Sections 379, 447, 506, 341, 342, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. The allegation in the complaint is that A1 is the wife, A2 is the son and other petitioners are relatives and friends of defacto complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that the defacto complainant is the Managing Director of Anjana Explosives Limited. A3, A6 to A9 were interfering with the personal life of the complainant and threatened him. A1 and A2, who are wife and son used to fight with him and threaten him.
4. On 10.03.2019, A6 to A9 held meeting at Kakinada and threatened the defacto complainant to transfer properties standing in his name in favour of A1 and A2, failing which he has to face dire consequences. At the instance of A6 to A9, A1 to A3 committed theft of property documents of the complainant. A3 made duplicate keys of the office main door with an intention to commit theft of the valuable documents of M/s.Anjana Explosives Limited. Accordingly, on 24.05.2019 using duplicate keys, office premises was opened and committed theft of; i) agreement with different purchasers and customers of the company; ii) cheques issued by purchasers, customers of company towards security for the credit supplies; iii) personal property documents; iv) land papers/land allotment papers issued by the Government of Telangana in favour of Anjana Explosives and Rs.18.00 lakhs cash. Having committed theft, they went away locking the premises. He had faced problems on account of the documents being taken away by the wife and others. He incurred nearly loss of Rs.10.00 Crores on account of the acts of these petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is filed with a delay of nearly one year and ten months. No reasons are stated in the complaint regarding the delay. Due to family disputes, false complaint was filed by implicating all the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd respondent that these are all questions of trial which can be decided by the trial Court. The CCTV footage was available which was handed over to the police and is part of evidence. Accordingly, petition has to be dismissed.
7. As seen from the record, the alleged incident happened on 25.04.2019. Private complaint was filed on 04.01.2021. Admittedly, no seizures were affected from any of the petitioners. The list of witnesses is the complainant himself and two of his other employees. There is no investigation as to how the petitioners i.e., A1 and A3 have entered into the premises. No investigation is done to show that a duplicate key was made for the purpose of entering into the premises.
8. The entire investigation is based on the complaint made and charge sheet is also filed on the basis of the statement of complainant. There is no explanation as to why there is a delay of one year and eight months. Admittedly, A1 is the wife and A2 is the son of the defacto complainant. There are family disputes regarding properties. In the back ground of the said disputes and the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, false implication is apparent. To attract an offence of theft, immovable property should have been removed without the consent of the complaint. Though the complainant claims that several documents, cheques were missing, nothing was seized from the petitioners. Specific details of documents are not given but vaguely stated that several property documents and other business documents were seized. No witnesses are examined, who are parties to the alleged document
